Russell's Criticisms of Christianity & Jesus

BMS

Well-known member
It's why he cannot consider Christ to have been the best and wisest of men.
so he disagrees with Christ's teaching and thus doesnt think Christ is the wisest.
Isnt that pretty typical of lots of people who dont believe in Christ?
 

5wize

Well-known member
so he disagrees with Christ's teaching and thus doesnt think Christ is the wisest.
Isnt that pretty typical of lots of people who dont believe in Christ?
No. Most atheists just think the entire biblical narrative is incredulous. Jesus could have been depicted as perfectly as possible to an atheist's moral sensibilities and it wouldn't matter because the entire biblical vehicle that delivers his narrative lacks credibility.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
so he disagrees with Christ's teaching and thus doesnt think Christ is the wisest.
Isnt that pretty typical of lots of people who dont believe in Christ?
Maybe you could read what he actually says. It's only a few pages, and he does more than merely disagree with Christ's teachings.
 

Hypatia_Alexandria

Well-known member



It doesn’t seem usually to be printed in editions of the LXX, as far as I can tell.
As for deities and human form, does the book you’re reading about this comment on evidence outside of the Hebrew bible?
Some of the texts of Deuteronomy, especially those from Qumran, have helped to elucidate the LXX as translation and variants found at Qumran have substantiated an earlier Hebrew version of the texts, which includes Deuteronomy 32.8. The Masoretic and Samaritan translations read this

When Elyon apportioned the nations.
When he distributed humankind.
He established the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the sons of Israel.


The Greek replaces the “sons of Israel” with “angels of God” or “sons of God”. The latter being found in the earliest traditions. The Vorlage of the Greek is therefore confirmed by Deuteronomy which retains the phrase “sons of Elohim”. It is probably likely that this reference to other divine beings was later suppressed for developing theological considerations.

As to Yahweh being the High god presiding over a pantheon of other figures known from the Ugaritic texts, this construct appears to be vestigial.

However, one biblical text {Psalm 82] does show us Yahweh as a figure within a self evident pantheon but not as its chief god. That figure neither speaks nor is he is described, which possibly explains why this fragment survived later editing. Verse1 reads:

God [‘ĕlōhîm] stands in the divine assembly/assembly of El [‘ădat ‘ēl]
Among the divinities [‘ĕlōhîm] He pronounces judgment.


The figure of Yahweh, understood as God takes his place in the assembly. The name El was traditionally understood, possibly also at the time of the text’s composition, to be Yahweh and not a separate god called El. Furthermore, this assembly consisted of all the gods of the world who are to be condemned to death [verse 6].

I myself presumed that You are gods,
Sons of the Most High (Elyon),
Yet like humans you will die,
And fall like any prince.


At verse 8 a prophetic voice calls for God/Yahweh now called ‘ĕlōhîm to assume the role of the judge of the earth;

Arise, O God, judge the world;
For You inherit all the nations.


This verse effectively asks Yahweh to take on the roles of all gods and to rule their nations in addition to his own, that of Israel. The reference at verse 6 to “the sons of Elyon” is a probable title of El at an earlier point in biblical tradition, given that in Genesis 14.18-20 El Elyon is mentioned three times.

It would therefore appear that beneath the later redaction and editing, there lies a tradition where Yahweh was not the presiding High god but one of El’s sons.
 

Hypatia_Alexandria

Well-known member
I wonder where you find that in the Hebrew Scriptures.

john
Before I address that, I will ask of you the same question I put to @stiggywiggy.

Do you accept that the texts that now form the Hebrew bible were revised and redacted after the Babylonian exile under what is generally known as the Documentary Hypothesis?
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Does God want everyone to know Him?

Do you get to know someone by seeing him, so as to know he exists? I don't even know my next door neighbor, but I see him nearly every morning when I'm leaving my driveway on my way to work.
 
Last edited:

RCM

Active member
What is a Christian?
Russell begins by defining terms, and concludes that three things are minimally necessary for qualifying as a Christian: Belief in God and immortality, and that Jesus was at least the best and wisest of all men. These therefore will be the targets of his criticism.

From a Biblical worldview, Russell is so far out in left field that he can't even see home plate, he isn't even close

From a secular viewpoint of Christianity, Russell still proves his complete ignorance of what the Bible teaches which can be supported by a quote from another critic of the Bible, Mark Twain, "It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."
The Existence of God
While acknowledging that the list is not complete, Russell considers 5 classical arguments for God. The first is The First Cause Argument which he argues cannot have any validity on account of begging the question of what caused God. He says "There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all."
Again, Russell's ignorance is displayed front and center. The Bible knows nothing of a created God (Exodus 3:14)

Created gods in the Bible are known as idols

Russell is such a hypocrite, he wants to claim God must have a beginning, but then he wants to postulate the idea that maybe the world or creation or the universe has always been existence

He next considers The Natural Law Argument,
Romans 1 refutes Russell


The third argument considered is The Argument from Design, and Russell argues that evolution has largely undercut this by showing how organisms have adapted to fit their environment rather than having the environment tailored to fit them.
Macro Evolution is theory only, the law of heredity is both factual and scientific. There is nothing that exists in nature that did not inherit its characteristics from is predecessors. People who support macro evolution as the basis for what exists have no explanation for the personal coming from the impersonal, therefore they have no explanation for personality, reason, conscience, nor language.

Fourth is the category of Moral Arguments for Deity, which Russell attributes primarily to Kant and rebuts with Euthyphro's Dilemma, arguing that either God's moral dictates are arbitrary meaning God cannot be non-trivially 'good', or God is himself subject to morality and therefore not the source of it.
Russell has no concept of God's holiness and justice nor of the Biblical themes of Light and Darkness

Russell is making assessments from a finite fallen viewpoint

The final considered argument is what he calls The Argument for the Remedying of Injustice, which is the idea that justice requires an afterlife where the injustices of our known world can be redressed. Russell rebuts this by saying it is as illogical as seeing rotten apples at the top of a crate and assuming there must be lots of good ones underneath to redress the balance.
He also observes that these arguments are rarely what actually motivates belief in God, which is more often due to childhood indoctrination and the desire for there to be someone powerful looking out for us.
Question, how does an innocent child who is murdered receive justice?

Job 34:10-17 "Therefore, listen to me, you men of understanding. Far be it from God to do wickedness, And from the Almighty to do wrong. "For He pays a man according to his work, And makes him find it according to his way. "Surely, God will not act wickedly, And the Almighty will not pervert justice. "Who gave Him authority over the earth? And who has laid on Him the whole world? "If He should determine to do so, If He should gather to Himself His spirit and His breath, All flesh would perish together, And man would return to dust. "But if you have understanding, hear this; Listen to the sound of my words. "Shall one who hates justice rule? And will you condemn the righteous mighty One."



The Character of Christ
Russell points out that few Christians take Christ's maxims seriously, such as turning the other cheek, which predates Christ anyway; his injunction against judgement, which hardly any Christian follows; and his command to give away one's belongings to the poor. These points Russell commends as good, if hard to live up to, before moving on to those teachings from Christ which he cannot agree with.

Russell had no concept of the Person of Jesus Christ. Jesus claimed to be the first and last (see Isaiah 41:4 and Isaiah 44:6), Jesus claimed to be the Good Shepherd (see Psalm 23), Jesus claimed to be the Great I Am (see John 8:58).


Defects in Christ's Teaching
Russell observes that we cannot know that Christ as depicted in the Gospels ever really existed, but argues that if he did then he cannot be considered the best and wisest of all men. The first reason given is that Christ appeared to believe, quite wrongly, that his second coming was imminent and would occur within the lifetimes of those he addressed.

Russell makes a fallacious assumption and reveals his complete ignorance


The Moral Problem
A more significant failing in Christ's teachings is his belief in hell (Matt 23:33, Matt 12:32, Matt 13:41-42), and Russell compares his indignation towards doubters unfavorably with the calmer attitude of Socrates. He says "I think all this doctrine, that hell fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty" and one which has caused a lot of unnecessary suffering.

Hell was created for the devil and the angels who rebelled against god (Matthew 25:41) and for those who reject the Son of God (Hebrews 10:26-31)

The Emotional Factor
Russell then considers the claim that we must refrain from criticizing religion because people would become evil and immoral without it, against which he argues that the religious have been equally cruel, that the cruelty of a society has tended to correlate with its religiosity, and that almost all moral progress has been made against the opposition of organized religion.
This is the first somewhat valid argument that Russell makes, a lot of religion is corrupt, and it is corrupt for the reason that there are people who profess to be christian who are counterfeit and then also satan loves religion and uses it to discredit God and Jesus


How the Churches have retarded Progress
Russell further argues that this is still the case today, as religion continues to cause suffering and impede progress by choosing "to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness", focusing instead on making people fit for heaven - and thereby quite unfit for the real world.

God's moral law is rejected by men because it exposes sin

Nothing is more denied but at the same time so constantly observable as sin


Fear for the Foundation of Religion
Russell diagnoses religion as founded upon fear - of death and the unknown - which explains why it so often leads to cruelty. He instead advocates science as a foundation for overcoming fear and making the world a better place.
For Russell there is no difference between religion and Christianity, but there is a big difference

Religion is man determining what should be acceptable to God

Christianity is God revealing how man can be reconciled to God through forgiveness found only in Jesus Christ (Acts 4:10-12)


What We Must Do
Russell concludes on a positive note: "We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world - its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness: see the world as it is, and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence... A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past, or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men."
Right here Russell acknowledges God both as a law giver and His moral law

If you admit that there is bad (evil) the you have to acknowledge there is such a thing as good, and if you acknowledge good and evil then you acknowledge a moral law, and if you acknowledge a moral law then you have to acknowledge a moral law giver, who is God, but that is who Russell is trying to disprove

Without a moral law there is no evil or good, it is only personal preference


Russell rejects the Biblical God and the Bible because it exposed him as a fallen, sinful, prideful man who would not admit his guilt!

RCM
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
He did not create everything.
The Bible begs to differ:

For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

Col 1:16.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
the tree is the torus concept i posted an representation of. it’s a physics and a consciousness, which is a negative mirror…an inversion and corruption of God’s reality… Adam partook of their mindset, and consciousness - and acquired that type of ‘thinking’ , which scripture calls the carnal mind.
I see. So we're back to stuff for which you have absolutely no evidence.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Russell's critique of Christ is first directed against him personally, and objectionable as ignoring and sidelining the purpose of his visit to earth, involving bringing the gift of salvation to all men.

Russell rejects the need for any personal salvation as he prefers sin
It's already been pointed out that you have zero support for this claim.
 

BMS

Well-known member
It's already been pointed out that you have zero support for this claim.
He has my support, so you are wrong there. Perhaps if you said he has little support it would be better.

...better but not good because there are a number of posters who agree with him.
 

cjab

Well-known member
It's already been pointed out that you have zero support for this claim.
Christ is my witness and his word is true.

John 3:19 "And this is the verdict: The Light has come into the world, but men loved the darkness rather than the Light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come into the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed."
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Christ is my witness and his word is true.

John 3:19 "And this is the verdict: The Light has come into the world, but men loved the darkness rather than the Light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come into the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed."
Sorry, that is still zero support.
 
Top